Over A Million Families Destroyed!

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Bingo. As a business man, I harvest peoples wages. If nobody has wages, I have nothing to harvest. When the wealth and income gets too highly concentrated at the top, there are only a few really rich people to sell to, and the line at their door gets too long.....:rolleyes:

Businessmen offer products and services, which are freely exchanged for wages. When a wage-earner buys something, they are making a judgment that the what they are buying is worth more than the wages they are holding. After a fair trade, the consumer should feel better off than beforehand.

Through this process of manufacturing, earning, and spending, the entire society gets wealthier over time, not poorer (unless most purchased objects depreciate extremely quickly, or if consumers fail to accurately judge the value of the things they buy), as human effort is transformed and captured.

From the businessman's perspective, it is true that a producer of goods and services for which there is consumer demand will eventually get wealthy (in the absence of government interference). However, so do his employees and his customers. Is that a bad thing?

Let's say a businessman brought some cool product to market that brought you and many others lots of pleasure and added to your life in many ways, far beyond the cost of the item, and he got wealthy in the process. Now imagine that never happened; you are left with your money (it was never "harvested"), but not the cool item. Would you feel richer? Or poorer? Or, take it to an extreme: say you had wages, but nothing to spend them on. Are you richer, or poorer?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Businessmen offer products and services, which are freely exchanged for wages. When a wage-earner buys something, they are making a judgment that the what they are buying is worth more than the wages they are holding. After a fair trade, the consumer should feel better off than beforehand.

Through this process of manufacturing, earning, and spending, the entire society gets wealthier over time, not poorer (unless most purchased objects depreciate extremely quickly, or if consumers fail to accurately judge the value of the things they buy), as human effort is transformed and captured.

From the businessman's perspective, it is true that a producer of goods and services for which there is consumer demand will eventually get wealthy (in the absence of government interference). However, so do his employees and his customers. Is that a bad thing?

Let's say a businessman brought some cool product to market that brought you and many others lots of pleasure and added to your life in many ways, far beyond the cost of the item, and he got wealthy in the process. Now imagine that never happened; you are left with your money (it was never "harvested"), but not the cool item. Would you feel richer? Or poorer? Or, take it to an extreme: say you had wages, but nothing to spend them on. Are you richer, or poorer?

Your points are good but you missed mine.

When wealth is highly concentrated it's harder to do business. When we have a couple hundred million people with significant disposable income the economy is more diverse and robust and it's easier to do business.

My customers all recieved valuable goods or services from me, and I don't apologize for the profits I made; I'm keeping the money and hope to get more.

[radon]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Your experience is a very common one, and it is incomprehensible to someone who has never been in that position.

It is the path of least resistance to "blame the victim." The problem has been caused by "systemic flaws," aided and abetted by those who have won big in this episode -- the politicians, and the upper echelons of FIRE -- but that is not how most view it.

To me it is surprising that in spite of the education offered on this site by EJ and others, people still insist on holding on desperately to their own ideological baggage.

And voting yourself another's pocketbook is a high ideal?

Are seriously committed to the idea that the making of unemployment benefits permanent by extending them every time they get close to expiring is beneficial to society or to the permanent underclass created by such policies.

You realize that someone somewhere has to pay for your "rights". Whether through taxes or the expansion of the money supply your entitlements are payed for by the savings of others. Entitlement policies themselves breed dependency. This is the way politicians build barns for so many human cattle. These notions, insidious and subtle, reek of slavery.

[flintlock]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Also it is important that there be a limit to wealth disparity -- times of extreme income/wealth disparity lead to the ills you mention, because in those/these times, it is perceived by the many that greed pays!

Agree with that for sure. I think our laissez-faire attitude about fraud has led to a whole generation of MBA trained liars. Will anyone end up paying the price for the housing fiasco? Doubtful.

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

When wealth is highly concentrated it's harder to do business. When we have a couple hundred million people with significant disposable income the economy is more diverse and robust and it's easier to do business.

The issue is that simply moving "wealth" from where it's concentrated to the masses won't change anything (other than perhaps destroying the motivation of the person who accumulated the wealth in the first place).

First, it would cause the prices of anything of value to rise. If everyone has more money, that's just inflation, and no one really gets ahead.

Second, assuming nothing else changes, any extra funds available to the masses would continue to flow in the same direction they do today. You could take away all of the money from one rich person, but if you change nothing else, after a while they will earn everything back again.

Third, without some concentration of wealth, certain businesses simply couldn't exist, and the associated employees wouldn't have jobs: luxury cars, fancy jewelry, high-end homes and construction, etc.

I suggest that the problem isn't wealth distribution; it's employee productivity. The latter is what makes the masses wealthy, not the former.

[ViC78]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

I suggest that the problem isn't wealth distribution; it's employee productivity. The latter is what makes the masses wealthy, not the former.

I still don't think that you have answered Thrifty's point. There is no doubt that there will a percentage of people in a country which will own most of the wealth and it is the way it should be because these people are (hopefully, but not neccesarily true always, e.g. FIRE) the innovators, the risk takers etc.

I guess the point in debate is what should this percentage be? Here is the image again which i posted above, but for some reason, is not visible.



So, corporate profits have increased 141% from '90 - '05 and CEO salaries have gone up 298%.
On the other hand, production worker's pay +4.3%.

Do you think this is fair? Why shouldn't labor deserve more of the profits? They obviously are productive if the profits have gone up 141%, aren't they? So, where is the wealth created for the labor class?

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Do you think this is fair? Why shouldn't labor deserve more of the profits? They obviously are productive if the profits have gone up 141%, aren't they? So, where is the wealth created for the labor class?

What's not fair is government involvement with business. By distorting the free market, that process facilitates injustice and corruption.

In a truly free society, I would have no objection to wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. In that case, it would mean that they earned it, by providing an even greater value to their customers. Today, it might mean that, or it might mean they are just good looters, and have managed to successfully collude with government to distort the market in their favor.

[Raz]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

And voting yourself another's pocketbook is a high ideal?

Are seriously committed to the idea that the making of unemployment benefits permanent by extending them every time they get close to expiring is beneficial to society or to the permanent underclass created by such policies.

You realize that someone somewhere has to pay for your "rights". Whether through taxes or the expansion of the money supply your entitlements are payed for by the savings of others. Entitlement policies themselves breed dependency. This is the way politicians build barns for so many human cattle. These notions, insidious and subtle, reek of slavery.

Thank you.

I've been holding similar thoughts in because I doubted my ability to remain completely civil and polite in expressing them.

I'm always amazed when the proponents of more government "solutions" forget whose money they are talking about.
As if every wage or profit should by default belong to "the people", who through their elected representatives will decide how much of your earnings they will allow you to keep.

Even if we somehow manage to flush the RepubliCrat whores from the Congress, force Glass-Steagall back onto the banks and end the stranglehold of the FIRE lobby, we will still lose if such a mindset of "entitlement" to the earnings or savings of others is not extinguished.

[Raz]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Did I say they ever were?:confused::eek: We both know I'm talking about the prevailing level being unacceptably high. You can't turn on the TV without watching some hokey crap being pitched. "Reality" shows that are totally faked and everyone knows it. Yet all pretend they are "real". Business used to be run on a handshake. Now it reminds me more of two guys tied at the wrist having a knife fight. Neither trusting the other. Bullshit has crept into the American consciousness to such a level that we don't even call it out for what it is anymore. Instead they've turned it into an art. Where as long as you lay it on the right way, there is no such thing as a lie anymore. Only the uneducated, the powerless, the unsophisticated can lie. The rest are just caught in "misunderstandings". :rolleyes:

Maybe you don't remember a time or place where such a level of BS was not tolerated, but I sure do.;) At least in the past people pretended that integrity mattered. Now its merely scoffed at as old fashioned. Or only paraded out at election time for the hypocrites to claim as something the other lacks.

Right on. I well remember such a time, and some days I wonder what in the world has happened to American society.:confused:

[ViC78]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

What's not fair is government involvement with business. By distorting the free market, that process facilitates injustice and corruption.

In a truly free society, I would have no objection to wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. In that case, it would mean that they earned it, by providing an even greater value to their customers. Today, it might mean that, or it might mean they are just good looters, and have managed to successfully collude with government to distort the market in their favor.

Again, you are addressing some fantasy scenario which has never existed in any part of the world, at least according to my limited knowledge. The government sets the rules and the free market operates within those rules. The problem with free-market capitalism is free market capitalists. Once they have the upper hand in any sort of technology, they want to preserve the monopoly and try to co-opt the government towards their goals via lobbying, bribes etc.

I don't think that we can solve this issue by saying "Free Market" thrice and clicking our heels. The economy is not some kind of god that we should worship. The economy should be about people, first and foremost. The idea to ensure that citizens of a country have a decent standard living and not being sacrificed at the altar of corporate profits, I guess, is too much to hope for, when it seems that too many people are slaves to their respective ideologies.

As somebody pointed out above, the answer to an inept/corrupt govt is not no government, but a better government, more aligned with the interests of its citizens.

[flintlock]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

I can't tell you how many people in construction I personally know who are collecting unemployment benefits while still working side jobs for cash. I'm all for unemployment benefits, but I can tell you the system is being played by many. That said, I think we are in unusual times, and considering the huge bailouts to banks, It doesn't bother me too much that benefits keep getting extended. We just need to be careful about creating a nation on the dole.

[ViC78]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

I can't tell you how many people in construction I personally know who are collecting unemployment benefits while still working side jobs for cash. I'm all for unemployment benefits, but I can tell you the system is being played by many. That said, I think we are in unusual times, and considering the huge bailouts to banks, It doesn't bother me too much that benefits keep getting extended. We just need to be careful about creating a nation on the dole.

Fraud is fraud, irrespective of the scale or who commits it. I am/was opposed to the bailouts right from the beginning and think that this was the greatest swindle in history, but that still does not absolve the crime by these guys. I would be curious as to the percentage of people involved in this kind of gaming, if it is, lets say 2-3%, I would be more forgiving since the majority of the benefit is going to families in need.

However, this is another exercise in kicking the can down the road. With the elections coming up, who can fault the thinking?

[Camtender]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

And voting yourself another's pocketbook is a high ideal?

Are seriously committed to the idea that the making of unemployment benefits permanent by extending them every time they get close to expiring is beneficial to society or to the permanent underclass created by such policies.

You realize that someone somewhere has to pay for your "rights". Whether through taxes or the expansion of the money supply your entitlements are payed for by the savings of others. Entitlement policies themselves breed dependency. This is the way politicians build barns for so many human cattle. These notions, insidious and subtle, reek of slavery.

I could not have said it better, thank you.

[Raz]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Again, you are addressing some fantasy scenario which has never existed in any part of the world, at least according to my limited knowledge. The government sets the rules and the free market operates within those rules. The problem with free-market capitalism is free market capitalists. Once they have the upper hand in any sort of technology, they want to preserve the monopoly and try to co-opt the government towards their goals via lobbying, bribes etc.

I don't think that we can solve this issue by saying "Free Market" thrice and clicking our heels. The economy is not some kind of god that we should worship. The economy should be about people, first and foremost. The idea to ensure that citizens of a country have a decent standard living and not being sacrificed at the altar of corporate profits, I guess, is too much to hope for, when it seems that too many people are slaves to their respective ideologies.

As somebody pointed out above, the answer to an inept/corrupt govt is not no government, but a better government, more aligned with the interests of its citizens.

ViC78,

You made some good points, so let me try to add one: is it not clear that Labor Unions attempt the very same things?

How else do we describe Closed Shops, No Secret Ballot, Featherbedding in contracts that reaches the level of insanity, 80% of salary retirement pensions and other extortions that cause such price increases to the end user that it requires a strongly protectionist government to hold the domestic market captive to such soft-arm robbery?

I came of age in the Late 1960s and well remember the stranglehold Big Labor had on the Auto, Steel, Transportation and other industries. While I will freely admit that for the past twenty years greedy FIRE capitalists have done more damage in that time span than labor, resurgent power of Big Labor is not the answer. The Public Employees Unions should be proof enough to nix that idea.

It seems both need the restraining hand of government.
(Now if we could only figure out how to keep each side from buying Congressmen. :confused::eek::confused

[ViC78]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

ViC78,

You made some good points, so let me try to add one: is it not clear that Labor Unions attempt the very same things?

How else do we describe Closed Shops, No Secret Ballot, Featherbedding in contracts that reaches the level of insanity, 80% of salary retirement pensions and other extortions that cause such price increases to the end user that it requires a strongly protectionist government to hold the domestic market captive to such soft-arm robbery?

I came of age in the Late 1960s and well remember the stranglehold Big Labor had on the Auto, Steel, Transportation and other industries. While I will freely admit that for the past twenty years greedy FIRE capitalists have done more damage in that time span than labor, resurgent power of Big Labor is not the answer. The Public Employees Unions should be proof enough to nix that idea.

It seems both need the restraining hand of government.
(Now if we could only figure out how to keep each side from buying Congressmen. :confused::eek::confused

Hi Raz,

I think you might have read more into the post that I intended. I don't believe that an all-pervasive labor union is the answer to our issues, as shown by the examples given by you, unions can be destructive as well.

However, on the other hand, without unions, you would not have things like a safe work environment, compensated over time etc. Hence, as in with most things in life, there has to be some kind of balance.


In fact, constrained by my limited intellect, I am not quite sure as to what the optimal solution might be. However, one thing is for sure, that the current looting by the top 1% is not sustainable. For example, Goldman brushed aside its shareholders' opinion that executive pay should be constrained (It was paying out 47% of its profits as bonuses, I think).